My original goal was to restrict it to just ID claims, but as I was
reminded, "classic" creationists also make many of the same claims,
some of which even predate the ID movement. As usual, I don't want to
simply lump all anti-evolutionists under a "creationist" label
without noting the differences in strategies (hence the long
introduction).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------

"Refuting" Evolution Any Way You Can - Contradictions and All

Anti-evolution strategies, collectively known as "creationism,"
have evolved from "Teach Scripture, not Evolution" to
"scientific" Creationism, to Intelligent Design (ID), to "Teach
the Controversy" (TtC). All the while, whether for proposed high
school science class instruction, or other outlets (e.g. books,
editorials, debates), the emphasis has steadily moved away from
defending specific alternate origins accounts and toward grasping for
weaknesses in evolution. One of the reasons for this trend is the fact
that all anti-evolution strategies have been found by the legal system
to be religious ideas, and thus not appropriate for public school
science education. But another, often overlooked reason is the apparent
growing awareness among leading anti-evolutionists that the alternate
accounts are fraught with scientific failures and contradictions, and
of course, lack a theory, even if their claims are stated in
nonreligious terms.

Some anti-evolution groups, particularly the young-Earth and old-Earth
creationists (YECs and OECs), valiantly (or foolishly, depending on
your perspective) insist on detailing their alternate positions, and
even occasionally criticize other creationists. But the groups now
dominant in the attempts to "reform" science education advocate
only TtC in class and ID outside of class. They have realized that all
it takes is to instill some unreasonable doubt about evolution, throw
in some "designer" language where legal, and most people will infer
their favorite scriptural account. In fact, ID/TtC may be the most
effective way to promote scriptural literalism, because teaching the
creationist accounts, even in designer-free terms, risks having them
critically analyzed, and thus found to be at least seriously inferior
to evolution.

The irreconcilable differences among the various creationist positions
and strategies are examined in detail elsewhere (1). This article lists
several other notable contradictions among anti-evolutionists that
arise from their insatiable need to find anything and everything wrong
with evolution and the nature of science. If any of the groups had an
alternate theory that they could support, they would have no need to
risk exposing all these conflicting viewpoints, some of which at times
come from the same person, and not necessarily from a documented change
of opinion, but from the desire to "have it both ways."
Anti-evolutionists may object that mainstream scientists (or what they
like to call "Darwinists") also change their minds, and disagree
with each other on many issues within evolution. But the huge
difference is that "Darwinists" are very public with their
disagreements and work hard to resolve them, even if it means admitting
that they had been wrong.

Conflicting claims are made by anti-evolutionists of all stripes, but
are most notable for ID advocates, who, because they prefer not to
state, let alone support, their position, have little else to work
with. These contradictory, bait-and-switch, double standard and "have
it both ways" claims include:

1.  ID advocates claim that ID is strictly scientific, but never
disavowed the Wedge document, which clearly outlines ID's religious
intent. And they rarely challenge followers who assume that ID is
religious. See also Claim 8 below. (2, 3)

2.  ID advocates claim not to be creationists, but then take most of
their misrepresentations of evolution out of the classic
creationists' playbook. They know that the public will define
"creationist" mainly as "YEC," so they are technically correct,
as they do not directly try to support YEC. But they know that their
critics define "creationist" as anyone who misrepresents evolution
and proposes a design-based alternative. (1, 4)

3.  ID advocates claim that ID is not necessarily about God, but they
easily change their tune if they think that the audience is receptive.
(2, 3)

4.  ID advocates routinely switch between "ID in the general sense"
and the ID strategy to misrepresent evolution. The former is merely a
belief that a designer is responsible for life - a belief that many
"evolutionists" hold. When they have trouble answering refutations
of their arguments against evolution, it's "only about the
design," but when the flaws in their arguments for design are
exposed, it's back to trotting out the misrepresentations of
evolution. (5)

5.  ID is "shut out" of mainstream science publishing, but that
doesn't stop ID advocates from bragging about how a few of them
published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals anyway (never mind that
the papers neither challenge evolution nor support ID). Note, William
Dembski, one of the leaders of the ID movement, has admitted that he
just doesn't bother submitting papers anyway. (6, 7, 8)

6.  Dembski complains about being asked for "mechanistic details" -
while nearly all ID theorists and proponents use mechanistic metaphors
("little trucks and buses" etc.), but do not think that they need to
provide any testable mechanistic details of the implementation of the
design. (6, 9)

7.  ID advocates suggest that the fact that scientists can't create
life in the lab shows how complex and beyond our understanding it is -
they then go on to use human design and manufacture as evidence for
biological design. That implies that humans are not intelligent enough
to design life, but intelligent enough to catch the one who can red
handed. (10, 11)

8.  In asserting the transcendental design of a structure/function ID
advocates presume to perceive intent, but when pressed for explanation
of the apparent contradictions of "bad" design they cavil that one
cannot know the mind of the designer. (12)

9.  ID advocates recognize that science evolved out of religion and
sometimes note that most of the early "scientists" were creationists -
then in the next breath they'll complain that ID needs more time to be
allowed to develop as a viable scientific theory. Note: Some IDers will
avoid the contradiction by simply noting that ID and creationism are
different things. But not all of them do that; Phillip Johnson is quite
comfortable being labeled a "creationist." (13)

10.  Science is stuck in a rut, and to fix it we need to abandon the
absolute requirement of methodological naturalism, but ID is not a
religion and it doesn't require that the designer is a supernatural
entity. If the designer is not supernatural and not a deity, why won't
the naturalistic methods of science do? (2, 14)

11.  Dembski, reminds us that Behe accepts common descent and asserts
Carl Woese "explicitly rejects" it - and does it in the same
article, no less. That is meant to fool nonscientists into thinking
that Woese rejects human-ape common ancestry, which he does not. It
merely switches the scientific definition of "common descent" with
the caricature definition. (15)

12.  ID advocates frequently brag about a small list of real scientists
who signed a vague  "dissent from 'Darwinism'" statement, but are
unimpressed by a larger list of "Steves," and a much larger list of
members of Christian clergy, who signed unambiguous statements
endorsing evolution. (16, 17, 18)

13.  Evolution is unfalsifiable and falsified. (19)

14.  Pope John Paul II was misinterpreted, or was he "bullied" by
"Darwinists?" (He was neither) (20, 21, 22)

15.  Stuart Kauffman is a "Darwinist", or is he a fellow
"dissenter?" (23, 24)

16.  Most ID advocates claim to be uncertain of evolution's less
extraordinary, and well-supported claims, such as the age of the earth
and the common ancestry of humans and apes. Yet they express no
uncertainty about their "scientific" answers to the ultimate
questions, such as whether life is designed. All science, not just
evolution, simply does not ask the ultimate questions, because both
affirmative and negative answers make extraordinary claims that science
cannot back up. (25, 26)

17,  ID advocates claim that science is taking IC and ID seriously.
Have they forgotten how Behe's own testimony at Dover and the ruling
by Judge Jones shows that IC has nothing to do with ID but is merely a
negative argument against the ability of variation and selection to
explain a particular feature? (27)

18,  ID is a scientific theory, just like evolution. But evolution is
just a belief, like ID. Most ID advocates start with the former, but
when they need a "plan B," resort to the latter. Phillip Johnson in
particular, likes to emphasize the latter. To cover the tracks of this
discrepancy, and the one in Claim 13 above, William Dembski shows his
exceptional skills at defining terms to suit the argument, by claiming
that ID is testable and "Darwinism" is not. (28)

Acknowledgements

The above entries are edited from contributions from Noctiluca (No. 6
to 9), Neverbetter (No. 10) and PvM (No. 17).

To all of the above: If my editing has changed any of your intended
meanings, please let me know.

Special thanks to Mark Isaak, whose "Index to Creationist Claims"
(29) was an invaluable resource, and to Ronald Bailey (30), who
explained why anti-evolutionists would promote what they do not
necessarily accept in private, and hence risk repeating so many
falsehoods and contradictions.

References

(1)  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

(2)  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001.html

(3)  http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

(4)  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_2.html

(5)
http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/show_article2.asp?ID=3090
       Note how Behe does not ask Haught to reject evolution.

(6)   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dembski

(7)  The Chronicle of Higher Education Dec. 21, 2001

(8)  http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers_hopeless_1.html

(9)  http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000152-p-3.html

(10)  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html

(11)  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI131.html

(12)  http://www.ooblick.com/text/id-fabnaq.html

(13)  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA114.html

(14)  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA301.html

(15)  http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/dembskincse.htm

(16)  http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

(17)  http://www.natcenscied.org/article.asp?category=18

(18)  http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/clergy_project.htm

(19)  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html

(20)  http://lordibelieve.org/twotw/pope.PDF

(21)  http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c017.html
Note, Cal Thomas changed his mind from the Pope "succumbing to the
tyranny" to just "misinterpreted" and is apparently not trying to
have it both ways. But there may be others who do, and even if not,
there's little or no public debate about it among anti-evolutionists.

(22)  http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

(23)  http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/dembski172.htm

(24)
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2253_pr91_10142001__kauffma...

Note: Kauffman does not think that natural selection alone is
responsible for the origin   and diversity of life (does anyone?), but
unlike pseudoscientific anti-evolutionists, he tests his alternate
hypotheses, admits where he may be mistaken, and is clear about what
more work remains to be done to better validate his ideas. Because of
that, he rejects the ID approach.

(25)  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI100.html

(26)
http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/show_article2.asp?id=2671

(27)  http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/evolution_of_ic.html

(28)  http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm

(29)  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html